Slashdot Mirror
Have We Learned from the New Economy?
prostoalex writes "The new issue of Fast Company magazine looks at the so-called New Economy in retrospect. There were some myths about the Internet that were not true, or could be considered true only partially in the brief history of the Internet boom, there were people who got burned and those who nicely cashed out and then there were those who had to start a new life because of the Internet."
I just picked up a package from the Post Office this morning. I placed the order on the internet and when it arrived the From address was about 10 miles from where I live, I drive past it twice every day and ride my bicycle past it on Saturdays and Sundays. I paid shipping and waited, when I could have just nipped in and got the item I wanted right away. Truly, I've taken the internet for granted. Anywhere to order from might as well be another country, for the way I simply point and click.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Another book discussing the wonders of the "new economy" (post-industrialism) is Unsustainable. I just finished, it's excellent.
This is my sig.
I've learned that Slashdot provides a lot of resources for procrastinating at work, reading articles about how much money is lost because employees surf the web at work...while surfing the web at work.
And knowing's half the battle!
The big lesson to learn from the new economy was that the basic rules of economics still applied. Sure there were a lot of innovations that transformed many industries, but the basic laws of supply and demand still held true. The basic requirement that businesses had to generate revenue in order to survive still held true. It seemed that every time you looked around during the 90s there was another new economy: the information economy, the digital economy, the attention economy, the experience economy etc. etc. but these were all put forward by people who didn't know anything about economics.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
for further reading i would suggest: the roaring nineties written by josepth stiglitz. stiglitz, who won the nobel prize in economics, was part of the clinton administration. i just finished it and i think it gives a great overview of what went wrong and what went right with the "new economy". he is fairly balanced-being critical of both bush and clinton. also, you dont have to be an economist to appreciate the arguments presented in this text.
-- john
Most people use this system.
1. Hype
2. ????
3. Profit
4. Greed
5. Lose everything
Or
1. Wait until it's "safe" to invest (when the market's near the top)
2. Invest
3. Lose everything
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
It doesn't matter what we've learned, because like every other economic bubble, by the the next one has come along everyone will either:
i) think they know why this one is going to be different or
ii) will have forgotten the lessons of this one anyway
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
As far as politics, money and corruption is concerned:
The more things change, the more they stay the same (ref: "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold, makes the rules).
I know the above comment is cheap, but IMO, one thing that *hasn't* changed in the "new economy" is that (white-collar) crime still pays for too many high powered execs and that corporate accountability is hard to enforce.
Again, IMO, this is one of the reasons more people lost their jobs, in high-tech or anywhere else, than was neccessary.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The whole notion of a "new economy" is the myth. Economics will be what it always has been: People offering something that other people want/need. The only thing that changes is what is offered.
Those who understand that have successful internet businesses. Those who don't have failed internet businesses.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The whole phenomenon was down to greed. I worked on a big project, and it happened like this:
- A good idea started
- Good people got hired
- Investors dumped in a load of money
- Stuff got too big too quick
- People on stupid salaries started thinking they had to change stuff all over the place, new logo new this new that
- The web visitors just said no thanks had enough - it wasn't working like it used to
- The site that is left is no more, but you can see the changes here:
Links: what was left The new look The old look country siteThe idea was OK, but by the time a load of stupid shit like free email, instant messaging and all that was tacked on, it just didn't work any more, cost way too much money...
But we had a great launch party for Orientation Morocco, let me tell you!
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
The one thing I get to take with me after taking a job in 1999 at age 19 to make more money than I ever expected to, through being both fired and laid off in 2003, is that continued education and awareness of the outside world have been paramount towards any career success I have.
:)
The Internet continues to be my preferred source of education. I've taken online classes through a community college. Newsgroups have helped me solve most of the problems I have at work, and I look sharper for it. I've regularly used online news sources to keep me aware of what's new in the world, given that local news anchors have more brilliance in their smile than their skulls.
Aside from my service costs, the Internet remains as free as Al Gore intended
-m.
I think that people who wants to play the market should take a class in accounting or similar courses to learn to read financial statements. I took several accounting courses in hopes of opening my own business someday and I was suprised to find that GAAP allows enough flexablility to inflate or deflate the "earnings" by the companies. I also learned that Statement of Cash Flow often times are more important the Income Statement or Balance Sheet. (A company yachet may be counted as an asset but does nothing to brining in money and most likely to be sold under the book value if company needs cash).
All the day traders I knew during the boom didn't know how to read the financial statements. They just relied on advises of some hot shot, other day traders who knew no better, and their gut feelings.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Anyone ever heard of that company? I used to work for them back in 1998-2000. It was supposed to be a huge (as Amazon) online store where people could by gifts chosen from our catalog that had thousands of gift items from jewelry (high end stuff) to home and garden, business, kids gifts, kitchen and food items to flowers. There was a gift reminder service (a personal event calendar where you enter event b-day's, etc.) that would remind you to buy a gift for the scheduled event, it would even provide a few suggestions based on info you provided.
The only problem was that the owners allegedly sold private shares of stock illegally. (A court Minnesota ruled against the company is several lawsuits brought by shareholders). The bankruptcy still lingers on. The thousands of shares I received for being an employee are worthless. My belief now is that the owner never intended to make money or operate a successful business. All he talked about was 'going public' and how rich we (he) were going to be.
The "New Economy' taught me a lot. After working to two other companies with the same business model I now work for an 'Old Economy' business that actually believes in making a profit, serving it customers and taking care of it employees. There is no IPO in sight for this company and that's fine with me.
I'll take a steady paycheck today instead of the promise of stock pay offs tomorrow.
One of the key indicators of just how well the ruse worked is that 60% of the working public was in one way or another invested in "Wall Street" during the late 1990's. The last time this many of the "regular working public" invested was during the 1920's.
Another, perhaps clearer indicator of how well the ruse worked is looking at just how much money was drained from the US economy (ie: your wallets and mine): $3.3trillion.
It's tragic, really. The technology was in some cases quite good. eBay roars along. Dell digitized their entire business model. And governments around the world have started to adopt Open Source works as the foundation from which to build upon. But greed extracted a huge price on the economy and our ability to reinvest those dollars in continued Research and Development.
Nothing beats the 17th century tulipmania . The power of human greed is always amazing.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
The thing most out-of-work programmers and undergrad students haven't yet grasped is that programming is not an ends of itself. You don't make a decent living as a programmer; you make a decent living using programming to develop something that has utility to someone willing to pay money for it. Simply pronouncing your C++/Java skills and hoping someone gives you a problem to solve doesn't qualify you for an $80k/yr job. People who will succeed in software from here on out will have to be focused on finding innovative things to do (hint: more free software ain't it) and hoping nobody has patented it first.
Unfortunately, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked and society's need for programmers is much, much less.
This is one of those flat-out lies that won't die. If those pinheads had done even the least bit of fact-checking they would have found that this canard was the creation of RNC spin-meisters. The curious can check out these links:
i ns /
6 40 .html
a mp aigns/wh2000/stories/gore032199.htm
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wigg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/c
and there are many, many more.
FWIW, we actually get the dead-tree edition of Fast Company magazine (don't ask why, it's a long story) and it's just as slick and empty as any of the old Dot-Com business plans. These people are just a waste of ink and pulp.
... is that self employment is the safest way to build a career. Why? The fundamental unit of trust is another person, not another company. As self-employed, I've insulated myself from most, if not all, of the stupid crap that companies do. While I have friends who have been laid off and rehired several times, I'm now for the first time confident in my financial future because I have a list of clients who all really need my services. They now trust me to get the work done. I trust them to pay on time. And that (to me) is worth more than a fat 401k because in ten years my work will be inflation-adjusted and grows with my clients (all of whom have been selected in part because they are likely to grow and already have a good pattern of it.)
And when I get ready to hire? The number one thing I'll be looking for on those resumes is a history of self-reliance and individual responsibility. There are a lot of professional committee-manipulators out there who like their comfortable BigCorp positions, and good for them. I'm confident that in twenty years, when we both look back and to see where we stand, my contributions to the world will be both worthwhile and significant.
Really, it all boils down to trust. That's what underlies the economic viability of open source: you're dealing with people and standardized network protocols and not organizational entities or proprietary lockin.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52